I heard our old friend Al Gore on the radio yesterday. He blamed “deniers” for planting seeds of doubt about the climate “crisis” for personal gain. He blamed the media for allowing deniers to have their views aired. We must be silenced or everyone is going to die. Maybe not today, but sooner or later!

Can anyone here claim to have personally gained by being a skeptic? I’d obviously like to get a piece of that action if there is a way to gain.

I’ve also expanded my understanding of how we are being robbed. Of course, it has its limitations. As one of my dark-haired girlfriends liked to put it, psychotherapy helps to get to know your demons but it doesn’t drive them away.

Just like many two-legged snakes … they accuse others of what they themselves have actually done. Al and the climate priests have profited handsomely from trying to convince us all that AGW is real and a threat. Why doesn’t Al point out even one person who doubts AGW that is gaining personally by doing so? The answer is … he cannot. But just like with AGW, it is easier for them to make wild unsupported claims, than to deal with the truth.

Then Andy DC writes “I’d obviously like to get a piece of that action if there is a way to gain.” Somehow I suspect that even if there WAS some way, that you and most skeptics have fully functioning consciences and would likely not be willing to go against them, even if for monetary gain. Obviously the climate priests have no such limitations on them or compunctions for that matter.

My normal impulse in cases like this is to suspect individual or institutional incompetence but the story of the destruction of the inconvenient DMI graph is pretty strange. The more people like Andy gloat over it, the more I wonder how it all transpired.

They said they no longer looked after that graph as it was an old product, they have said that on their page for ages. That’s why when it hit 2016 it went back to 2015 and stayed black rather than changing to a new colour. Because they were no longer looking at the graph they changed the methodology without thinking lots of people were still reading the graph even though advised not to.

No need for tinfoil hats. It was obvious as well something had changed as it was out of kilter with even their other graph. It wasn’t questioned in here, apart from me and the odd other person, because it showed bigger extent. If it had shown reduced extent it would have been cross examined more 😉